Another one you may not know about for the C-130, I hope the US keeps the A-10 flying for a long time yet as they can certainly devastate the target with that 30mm GAU.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...UzLuXnfrxWnTbQ
Printable View
Another one you may not know about for the C-130, I hope the US keeps the A-10 flying for a long time yet as they can certainly devastate the target with that 30mm GAU.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...UzLuXnfrxWnTbQ
The real downside with the airframe as I see it these days is it is too slow over the target. Great to have all that firepower available but a lot of beautiful hardware to missile out of the sky IMHO.
Not so much, completely different craft, you see the airspace over a battle is layered for a variety of reasons, and while the A10 can offer low level Close Air Support (CAS) the AC130 series operates on the higher altitudes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryEAL
When the A10 comes in you can see the pilot, when the AC130 is on station, you see someone else getting hell on earth a couple of grid squares away.
Best film on the A-10 that strikes near and dear to my heart is this one "HAWGS"
https://youtu.be/_L_TjXXx7eQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_TjXXx7eQ
Great short story on what the A-10 means to the ground troops also the pilots who provide that support thanks Sentry
I understood that one of the advantages of the A10 for ground attack role is it's relative slow speed and this is why the Harrier/AV8 also lended it's self well to this role. The pilot of the A10 is fairly well protected from small arms fire from the ground because of the titanium "bathtub" he sits in. Is any-one able to confirm that in the ground attack role a relatively slow aircraft is preferable to a supersonic aircraft, please?
In a combat environment where total air superiority (free from air-to-air combat) has been achieved, the slower plane does offer very distinct advantages. Hence why prop driven craft still served in the role during the Korean and Vietnam wars even after they had been technologically surpassed by jet powered designs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
One laymen example could be, try driving your car into your garage at 100 kph, reducing speed aids in target identification, location of friendlies, and getting the best understanding of the battle space. Helicopters and drones also have similar qualities in this manner. Speaking strictly to the war in Afghanistan these pilots were tasked with destroying very small troop concentrations, which is much the same as trying to throw a dart at a fly on the wall while sprinting across the pub.
I have never flown a fighter or anything like that but I have hung out the doors various helicopters in those situations wondering how anyone could manage to hit anything from a CAS fixed wing craft on a gun run.
I'll add that we had US and VNAF flown A-1 Skyraiders flying close air support right through the Vietnam War. The Skyraider was designed towards the end of WWII and carried the bomb load of a B17.
Low and slow is the name of the game for close air support which is why historically the role frequently was performed by aircraft that were no longer considered 'top notch'. Now, the cost of designing and operating a mission specific aircraft usually means the CAS role is pushed on to a jack of all trades aircraft, i.e. FA-18s.